Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2008/0138168 (“Schruff”) in view of USPGPub No. 2020/0096032 (“Blaski”).
Regarding claim 1, Schruff discloses a fastener insert (1), comprising: a hollow shaft (3) extending in an axial direction and configured to receive a threaded fastener at a first axial end of the hollow shaft (fig. 1, paras. [0002]-[0006] & [0056], wherein the internal thread 4 at the first axial end is configured to receive and engage threads of a bolt); and a supporting flange (2) extending radially outward from a second axial end of the hollow shaft (fig. 1, para. [0056]); wherein the hollow shaft includes: an internally threaded shaft portion (4), the internally threaded shaft portion being configured to secure the threaded fastener received in the hollow shaft (fig. 1, paras. [0002]-[0006] & [0056]), and a resilient shaft portion (5) formed as a unitary single piece with the internally threaded shaft portion (fig. 1, paras. [0056]-[0057]). The examiner notes that a resilient shaft portion is interpreted as a shaft portion that is capable of at least partially springing back after being deformed. One of skill in the art appreciates that the portion 5 of the shaft of Schruff will at least partially springback after certain deformations (such as being axially elongated or compressed) as this is a known phenomenon in manufacturing and when deforming virtually all materials. This has to do with the differences between the compressive and tensile forces of the material during deformation, along with residual stresses of the material.
Schruff further discloses the internally threaded shaft portion (4) extends in the axial direction from the first axial end to the resilient shaft portion, and the resilient shaft portion (5) extends in the axial direction from the internally threaded shaft portion to the supporting flange (2) at the second axial end (fig. 1).
Claim 1 also recites the rotation of the threaded fastener in the hollow shaft pulls the supporting flange towards the first axial end of the hollow shaft. This is an intended use limitation. Thus, the insert of Schruff merely has to be capable of being used with a threaded fastener in this way. Since the bottom of the shaft is open, a threaded fastener is capable of being inserted into the bottom of the shaft so that fastener pulls the flange in a direction towards the first axial end.
Claim 1 further recites the resilient shaft portion is configured to sustain an axial preloaded tension and the resilient shaft portion is configured to be deformable in the axial direction without increasing a radial extent of the resilient shaft portion. As detailed above, the insert of Schruff is capable of being used with a bolt to clamp workpieces between the head of a bolt and the flange of the insert, wherein the bolt is inserted into the first axial end of the shaft so that fastener pulls the flange in a direction towards the first axial end. When clamping workpieces in this way the resilient shaft portion can sustain an axial preloaded tension and can elongate axially without a radial extent of the shaft increasing (almost all materials including the metal of Schruff have some amount of ductility—i.e. can deform a certain amount before fracturing).
Claim 1 also recites the hollow shaft is configured to accommodate thermal expansion and maintain an axial preloaded tension; the resilient shaft portion includes one or more portions having strength characteristics formed to sustain an axial preloaded tension. This is a functional limitation, thus the insert of Schruff merely has to be capable of this limitation. The insert of Schruff is capable of being put in tension since a fastener can be threaded into the first axial end of the shaft as discussed above. Further, similarly to Applicant’s invention, the circular cutouts 7 provide resiliency to the shaft portion such that it would allow a certain amount (even if minor) of thermal expansion while substantially maintaining the preloaded tension.
Claim 1 also recites the resilient shaft portion includes one or more portions having strength characteristics formed to avoid radial deformation. Since almost all rigid objects (including the insert of Schruff) can withstand at least some amount of force before deforming, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the insert of Schruff can withstand some amount of force before radially deforming, i.e. strength characteristics to avoid radial deformation. In addition, if put in tension, the shaft can elongate—which is not interpreted as deforming radially (radially deforming is interpreted as a noticeable change in overall shape of the shaft portion due to a portion of the shaft deforming radially; not merely a minor change in diameter from stretching).
Schruff fails to explicitly teach the hollow shaft formed from at least one of ultra-high temperature ceramics, refractory metals, and anisotropic ceramic matrix composite materials, the hallow shaft configured to withstand temperatures between 1000°F and 3000°F. However, this would have been obvious in view of Blaski.
Blaski is also directed to a blind rivet nut having a flange at one end, a threaded portion at the opposite end, and a portion between the flange and threaded portion configured to bulge outwardly to secure the rivet nut to a workpiece(s) (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0025] & [0028]). Blaski teaches the rivet nut can be made out of less strong metals such as aluminum, or relatively stronger metals such as stainless steel (¶ [0021]).
In this case, each of Schruff and Blaski are directed to blind rivet nuts having a flange at one end, a threaded portion at the opposite end, and a portion between the flange and threaded portion configured to bulge outwardly to secure the rivet nut to a workpiece(s). Schruff teaches the blind nut being metallic, but is silent as to specific metals. Blaski teaches one of skill in the art that it is predictable for such rivet nuts to be formed out of a variety of metals including stainless steel. One of skill in the art appreciates that stainless steel is known for its corrosion resistance and high strength. Thus, in order to provide a blind nut with high strength and good corrosion resistance, it would be obvious to form the blind nut of Schruff out of stainless steel.
Given the above modification, since stainless steel comprises chromium, the hollow shaft is partially formed from a refractory metal. The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of refractory metal includes metals having a melting point above 1650°C, including chromium and titanium.
Further, stainless steel is capable of withstanding temperatures above 1000°F, thus reading on: the hallow shaft configured to withstand temperatures between 1000°F and 3000°F.
Regarding claim 3, Schruff further discloses the resilient shaft portion is formed by at least one cutout in the hollow shaft (7) (fig. 1, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Schruff further discloses the at least one cutout includes a plurality of cutouts arranged circumferentially around the hollow shaft (fig. 1, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Schruff further discloses at least one of the at least one cutout is circular in shape (fig. 1, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Schruff further discloses at least one of the at least one cutout extends axially along the resilient shaft portion (fig. 7, para. [0066]). The examiner notes that the embodiment of fig. 7 reads on all the limitations of claim 1 as well. Different embodiments of Schruff are not being modified.
Regarding claim 8, Schruff further discloses a thickness of a circumferential wall of the resilient shaft portion is less than a thickness of the circumferential wall of the internally threaded shaft portion (fig. 1).
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schruff in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0113063 (“Meiffre”).
Regarding claim 1, Schruff teaches the limitations detailed in the previous rejection of claim 1, above. Schruff fails to explicitly teach the hollow shaft formed from at least one of ultra-high temperature ceramics, refractory metals, and anisotropic ceramic matrix composite materials, the hallow shaft configured to withstand temperatures between 1000°F and 3000°F. However, this would have been obvious in view of Meiffre.
Meiffre is also directed to a blind rivet nut having a flange at one end, a threaded portion at the opposite end, and a portion between the flange and threaded portion configured to bulge outwardly to secure the rivet nut to a workpiece(s) (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0001], [0035] & [0055]). Meiffre teaches the rivet nut can be made out of stainless steel or titanium (¶ [0041]).
In this case, each of Schruff and Meiffre are directed to blind rivet nuts having a flange at one end, a threaded portion at the opposite end, and a portion between the flange and threaded portion configured to bulge outwardly to secure the rivet nut to a workpiece(s). Schruff teaches the blind nut being metallic, but is silent as to specific metals. Meiffre teaches one of skill in the art that it is predictable for such rivet nuts to be formed out of stainless steel or titanium. One of skill in the art appreciates that stainless steel is known for its corrosion resistance and high strength, while titanium is known for its corrosion resistance and high strength to weight ratio. Thus, in order to provide a blind nut with high strength and good corrosion resistance, or high strength to weight ratio and good corrosion resistance, it would be obvious to form the blind nut of Schruff out of stainless steel or titanium.
The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of refractory metal includes metals having a melting point above 1650°C, including chromium and titanium. Thus, given the above modification, the hollow shaft is formed out of titanium (which is a refractory metal) or partially formed from chromium, which is a refractory metal (since stainless steel comprises chromium). Further, stainless steel and titanium are capable of withstanding temperatures above 1000°F (wherein the melting point of titanium is above 3000°F), thus reading on: the hallow shaft configured to withstand temperatures between 1000°F and 3000°F.
Claims 3-4 and 6-8 are rejected for the same reasons as the previous rejections to these claims.
Claims 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,259,714 (“Campbell”) in view of Blaski.
Regarding claim 10, Campbell discloses a fastener system (10), comprising: a fastener insert (12) including: a hollow shaft (16/18) extending in an axial direction from a first axial end to a second axial end of the hollow shaft (fig. 5, col. 3 lines 22-34), and a supporting flange (17) extending radially outward from the second axial end of the hollow shaft (fig. 5, col. 3 lines 24-26); wherein the hollow shaft includes an internally threaded shaft portion (18) and a resilient shaft portion (16) formed as a unitary single piece with the internally threaded portion (fig. 6, col. 3 lines 22-40). The examiner notes that a resilient shaft portion is interpreted as a shaft portion that it capable of at least partially springing back after being deformed. One of skill in the art appreciates that portion 16 of the shaft of Campbell will at least partially springback after certain deformations (for example elongating or compressing the portion 16) as this is a known phenomenon in manufacturing and when deforming virtually all materials. This has to do with the differences between the compressive and tensile forces of the material during bending, along with residual stresses of the material.
Campbell further discloses the internally threaded shaft portion (18) extends in the axial direction from the first axial end to the resilient shaft portion, and the resilient shaft portion (16) extends in the axial direction from the internally threaded shaft portion to the supporting flange at the second axial end (fig. 5).
Campbell also discloses a fastener (11) having a threaded shaft (14) configured to be received in the hollow shaft of the fastener insert at the first axial end and secured to the internally threaded shaft portion of the hollow shaft (fig. 6, col. 3 lines 34-41). Claim 10 further recites the resilient shaft portion is configured to accommodate axial preloaded tension from the fastener upon insertion of the fastener in the internally threaded portion. Since the insert of Campbell has a first open end, the bolt that is provided with the insert of Campbell is capable of clamping workpieces by being screwed into the internal thread at the open first end so that the insert is axially preloaded.
Claim 10 also recites the resilient shaft portion includes one or more portions having strength characteristics formed to accommodate thermal expansion by deforming in the axial direction. Since almost all objects (including the insert of Campbell) have some ductility and resiliency, one of skill in the art would reasonably infer the insert is capable of deforming axially when the workpieces/materials expand (even if only a small amount). It is also well known in the art for fastener shafts to elongate when subjected to tension.
Claim 10 also recites the hollow shaft is configured to maintain an axial preloaded tension during thermal expansion; the resilient shaft portion formed to sustain an axial preloaded tension. This is a functional limitation—thus the insert of Campbell merely has to be capable of this limitation. The insert of Campbell is capable of being put in tension since a fastener can be threaded into the first end of the shaft in order to clamp workpieces between the head of the bolt and the flange of the insert. Further, similarly to Applicant’s invention, the slots 19 provide resiliency to the shaft portion such that it would allow a certain amount (even if minor) of thermal expansion by deforming axially while substantially maintaining the preloaded tension.
Campbell fails to explicitly teach the fastener insert formed from at least one of ultra-high temperature ceramics, nickel super alloys, titanium, stainless-steel alloys, and anisotropic ceramic matrix composite materials, the fastener insert configured to withstand temperatures between 1000°F and 3000°F. However, this would have been obvious in view of Blaski.
Blaski is also directed to a blind rivet nut having a flange at one end, a threaded portion at the opposite end, and a portion between the flange and threaded portion configured to bulge outwardly to secure the rivet nut to a workpiece(s) (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0025] & [0028]). Blaski teaches the rivet nut can be made out of less strong metals such as aluminum, or relatively stronger metals such as stainless steel (¶ [0021]).
In this case, each of Campbell and Blaski are directed to blind rivet nuts having a flange at one end, a threaded portion at the opposite end, and a portion between the flange and threaded portion configured to bulge outwardly to secure the rivet nut to a workpiece(s). While Campbell is silent as to the material of the nut, Blaski teaches one of skill in the art that it is predictable for such rivet nuts to be formed out of a variety of metals including stainless steel. One of skill in the art appreciates that stainless steel is known for its corrosion resistance and high strength. Thus, in order to provide a blind nut with high strength and good corrosion resistance, it would be obvious to form the blind nut of Campbell out of stainless steel. Further, stainless steel is capable of withstanding temperatures above 1000°F.
Regarding claim 12, Campbell further discloses a length of the threaded shaft of the fastener is greater than a length of the internally threaded shaft portion of the hollow shaft of the fastener insert and equal to or less than a length of the hollow shaft of the fastener insert (figs. 5 & 6, wherein the length of the threaded shaft 14 is greater than the internally threaded shaft portion 18, but significantly smaller than the total length of the hollow shaft of the insert).
Regarding claim 16, Campbell further discloses a thickness of a circumferential wall of the resilient shaft portion is less than a thickness of the circumferential wall of the internally threaded shaft portion (figs. 4-6, col. 3 lines 22-34).
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either rejection of Schruff et al. as applied to claims 3 and 7 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Schruff fails to explicitly teach at least one of the at least one cutout is triangular in shape. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) states that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In this case, Schruff teaches the cutouts can have a variety of different shapes (see figures 1, 3 & 6-8). One shape illustrated in fig. 3 has a relatively thick top end and a relatively thin lower end—similar to that of an upside down triangular cutout. In addition, Applicant’s specification also teaches the cutouts can be a variety of shapes (see para. [0052] of Applicant’s originally filed specification), i.e. does not teach the triangular shape being significant over the other shapes. Thus, making the cutouts triangular is an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 21, Schruff fails to explicitly teach the at least one cutout extends in a tilted direction that has both an axial component and a circumferential component. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) states that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention was significant. In this case, Schruff teaches the cutouts can have a variety of different shapes, and explicitly teaches the cutouts can extend axially or circumferentially (see figures 1, 3 & 6-8). In addition, Applicant’s specification also teaches the cutouts can be a variety of shapes (see para. [0052] of Applicant’s originally filed specification), i.e. does not teach the claimed shape being significant over the other shapes. Thus, making the cutouts extend both axially and circumferentially is an obvious design choice.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either rejection of Schruff et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2005/0201844 (“Davies”).
Regarding claim 5, Schruff fails to explicitly teach at least one of the at least one cutout is triangular in shape. However, this would have been obvious in view of Davies.
Davies discloses a fastener insert (10) (figs. 1 & 3, para. [0012]), comprising: a hollow shaft (12) extending in an axial direction and configured to receive a threaded fastener at a first axial end of the hollow shaft (paras. [0003] & [0037], wherein the internal thread is at least capable of engaging a threaded bolt that is positioned within the first end of the hollow shaft); and a supporting flange (14) extending radially outward from a second axial end of the hollow shaft (figs. 1 & 3); wherein the hollow shaft includes: an internally threaded shaft portion (16) (fig. 3, para. [0037]), the internally threaded shaft portion being configured to secure the threaded fastener received in the hollow shaft (paras. [0003] & [0037], wherein the internal thread is at least capable of engaging and securing a threaded bolt), and a resilient shaft portion (22) formed as a unitary single piece with the internally threaded shaft portion (figs. 1 & 3, paras. [0039]-[0041]). Davies further discloses the resilient shaft portion is formed by at least one cutout in the hollow shaft (32 & 34 of figs. 1 & 3, paras. [0015] & [0040], wherein the grooves 32 & 34 are machined, i.e. cut in the shaft), wherein the at least one cutout can have a variety of shapes including rectangular or triangular (figs. 3-3C, para. [0040], wherein a V-shape is a triangular shape).
In this case, both Schruff and Davies are directed to an insert having a threaded region and a resilient shaft portion. Schruff teaches the resilient shaft portion can comprise a continuous groove 29 having a rectangular cross section (fig. 8a, para. [0068]). Davies teaches one of skill in the art that it is known and predictable to substitute a triangular cross section groove for a rectangular groove. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Schruff so that the resilient shaft portion has a groove, i.e. cutout, having a triangular cross section (i.e. a V-shape).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either rejection of Schruff et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,401,131 (“Yoshino”).
Regarding claim 9, Schruff fails to explicitly teach a circumferential wall of the resilient shaft portion is axially corrugated. However, this would have been obvious in view of Yoshino.
Similarly to Schruff, Yoshino teaches an insert configured to be inserted into a bore of a rigid material and anchored therein (figs. 3-6, col. 3 lines 1-39). Compression of the insert deforms the corrugated portion 17 radially outwards, thus, allowing the insert to be locked within the bore (figs. 3-6, col. 3 lines 29-46).
In this case, Schruff teaches an insert as described in the rejection to claims 1 above, that is configured to be secured in a bore of a rigid material by deforming the resilient portion radially outwards due to a compression force being applied with a threaded shaft to the internal threads of the insert (fig. 15, paras. [0076]-[0077]). Yoshino teaches an alternative resilient portion capable of locking within the bore of a rigid material after being deformed radially outwards due to a compression force, i.e. a corrugated hollow shaft portion. Since it is obvious to substitute one known structure/technique for another known structure/technique for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06(II) and/or MPEP 2143(I)(B)), it would be obvious to substitute the resilient portion of the hollow shaft of Schruff with the corrugated shaft portion taught by Yoshino.
The examiner notes that given the above modification, the insert of Schruff et al. would still meet the limitation of claim 1, of, the resilient shaft portion is deformable in an axial direction without increasing a radial extent of the resilient shaft portion, because the corrugated shaft portion could be elongated without increasing a radial extent of the resilient shaft portion. In addition, since both Schruff and Yoshino teach the insert being metal, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the insert of Schruff et al. can withstand some amount of force before noticeably radially deforming.
Claims 10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schruff in view of Campbell and Blaski.
Claim 10 recites a fastener system, comprising: a fastener insert including limitations found in claim 1, along with being configured to accommodate thermal expansion by deforming in the axial direction without increasing a radial extent of the resilient shaft portion. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, Schruff teaches the limitations found in claim 1. With respect to the additional limitation, it is a functional limitation—thus the insert of Schruff merely has to be capable of this limitation. The insert of Schruff is capable of being put in tension since a bolt can be threaded into the first end of the shaft to clamp workpieces between the flange of the insert and the head of the bolt. Further, similarly to Applicant’s invention, the circular cutouts 7 provide resiliency to the shaft portion such that it would allow a certain amount (even if minor) of thermal expansion by deforming axially while substantially maintaining the preloaded tension. In addition, since almost all materials (including the insert of Schruff) have some ductility and resiliency, one of skill in the art would reasonably infer the insert is capable of deforming axially when the workpieces/materials expand (even if only a small amount). It is also well known in the art for fastener shafts to elongate when subjected to tension.
Schruff fails to explicitly teach a fastener having a threaded shaft configured to be received in the hollow shaft of the fastener insert at the first axial end and secured to the internally threaded shaft portion of the hollow shaft; wherein the resilient shaft portion is configured to accommodate axial preloaded tension from the fastener upon insertion of the fastener in the internally threaded portion. This limitation would be obvious in view of Campbell.
Campbell is also directed to an insert having an internally threaded shaft portion, a flange, and a resilient shaft portion between the threads and the flange (see the rejection of claim 10 over Campbell, above). Campbell teaches that it is known to use such an insert to secure workpieces by inserting a bolt into the internally threaded shaft portion of the insert to deform the resilient shaft portion (fig. 6, col. 3 lines 34-41).
In this case, both Schruff and Campbell teach an insert having an internally threaded shaft portion, a flange, and a resilient shaft portion between the threads and the flange. Campbell teaches one of skill in the art that it is predictable to use a bolt to deform the resilient shaft portion in order to secure components. Thus, it would be obvious to provide a threaded bolt with the insert of Schruff so that a user can screw the bolt into the internal thread of the insert of Schruff in order to subsequently deform the resilient shaft portion to secure workpieces. Providing the bolt with the insert provides convenience for a user as they do not have to find a threaded member having the correct thread size in order to use the insert.
Given the above modification, since the insert of Schruff has a first open end, the bolt that is provided with the insert of Schruff is capable of being screwed into the internal thread at the open first end so that the insert is axially preloaded when workpieces are clamped between the head of the bolt and the flange of the insert.
Schruff fails to explicitly teach the fastener insert formed from at least one of ultra-high temperature ceramics, nickel super alloys, titanium, stainless-steel alloys, and anisotropic ceramic matrix composite materials, the fastener insert configured to withstand temperatures between 1000°F and 3000°F. However, this would have been obvious in view of Blaski for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 1 over Schruff in view of Blaski.
Regarding claim 14, Schruff further discloses the resilient shaft portion is formed by at least one cutout in the hollow shaft (7) (fig. 1, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Schruff further discloses the at least one cutout is at least one of triangular, circular, and linear in shape (fig. 1, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 16, Schruff further discloses a thickness of a circumferential wall of the resilient shaft portion is less than a thickness of the circumferential wall of the internally threaded shaft portion (fig. 1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schruff et al. as applied to claim 10, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,401,131 (“Yoshino”).
Regarding claim 17, Schruff et al. fails to explicitly teach a circumferential wall of the resilient shaft portion is axially corrugated. However, this would have been obvious in view of Yoshino for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 9 above.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schruff et al. as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, Schruff fails to explicitly teach a length of the threaded shaft of the fastener is less than or equal to a length of the internally threaded shaft portion of the hollow shaft of the fastener insert. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the only difference between Schruff et al. and the claimed invention is the relative lengths of the threaded shaft of the fastener and the internally threaded shaft portion of the insert. Merely modifying the length of the threaded portion of the fastener so that it is equal to the internally threaded shaft portion would not provide a fastener system that performs differently because the threads of the bolt will still be able to engage the internal threads of the insert in order to secure the blind fastener to the panels.
Regarding claim 12, Schruff fails to explicitly teach a length of the threaded shaft of the fastener is greater than a length of the internally threaded shaft portion of the hollow shaft of the fastener insert and equal to or less than a length of the hollow shaft of the fastener insert. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the only difference between Schruff et al. and the claimed invention is the relative lengths of the threaded shaft of the fastener and the internally threaded shaft portion of the insert. Merely modifying the length of the threaded portion of the fastener so that it is greater than the length of the internally threaded shaft portion, and less than the length of the hollow shaft, would not provide a fastener system that performs differently because the threads of the bolt will still be able to engage the internal threads of the insert in order to secure the blind fastener to the panels.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, Campbell fails to explicitly teach a length of the threaded shaft of the fastener is less than or equal to a length of the internally threaded shaft portion of the hollow shaft of the fastener insert. However, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In this case, the only difference between Campbell and the claimed invention is the relative lengths of the threaded shaft of the fastener and the internally threaded shaft portion of the insert. When viewing fig. 5 of Campbell, merely extending the length of internally threaded shaft portion 18 further downward (i.e. increasing the total length of the hollow shaft), and/or reducing the length of the threaded shaft, so that the threaded shaft of the bolt is equal to the internally threaded shaft portion would not provide a fastener system that performs differently because the threads of the bolt will still be able to engage the internal threads of the insert in order to secure the blind fastener to the panels.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and to the knowledge of one of skill in the art.
James Downing, chromium processing, Britannica, Screen shot taken on January 24, 2021, available at https://www.britannica.com/technology/chromium-processing teaches that chromium is considered a refractory metal due to its high melting point (see page 2 of document submitted herewith).
Brandon Ohl, Refractory Metals (Definition, Examples, and Applications), Materials Science & Engineering Student, Last Updated January 8, 2021, available at https://msestudent.com/refractory-metals-definition-examples-and-applications/ teaches that refractory metals can include metals with a melting point greater than 1650°C, including chromium and titanium (see page 4 of document submitted herewith).
International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials, Screen shot taken on May 15, 2021, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20210515225601/https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/international-journal-of-refractory-metals-and-hard-materials teaches that refractory metals are those with a melting point higher than 1800 °C, which includes chromium (see page 1 of document submitted herewith).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the amendments to claims 1 and 10 overcome the previous rejections. Thus, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights